I read the first paragraph of a review this morning that was not particularly flattering. After reading a description of the book, I am not sure that I want to read it especially in light of the older Atticus' attitudes.

I guess part of me loves the original book and movie so much that I just want to be able to enjoy that.

Does that make sense?

Lynn in Lake Balboa

"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."

"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese

Somewhere, probably on FB, I read that there is actually some doubt as to the authenticity of the book. The Lee Sisters were quite reclusive, and their attorney seems to be less than stellar. I agree Lynn, I would hate to have TKAMB tarnish d in any way.

"Life is not the way it's supposed to be.. It's the way it is.. The way we cope with it, is what makes the difference." ~ Virginia Satir""Most people pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it." ~ Soren Kierkegaard

I think it important to remember this is not a true sequel. In fact, listening to the descriptions "Mockingbird" is a rewrite (or at least a re-thinking) of this so it figures there are some things that would be different. I don't know how you reconcile the two versions of Atticus because maybe the one in "Watchman" was put away in favor of the "Mockingbird" version.

I think it important to remember this is not a true sequel. In fact, listening to the descriptions "Mockingbird" is a rewrite (or at least a re-thinking) of this so it figures there are some things that would be different. I don't know how you reconcile the two versions of Atticus because maybe the one in "Watchman" was put away in favor of the "Mockingbird" version.

From what I have read and from what I know of the publishing of "Mockingbird", I think you nailed it, Chris.

This is likely the original manuscript that Lee submitted for publishing. She worked with editor Tay Hohoff and reworked the manuscript till it became "Mockingbird". I personally think that was the thing to do. The story of Atticus being a racist thrown into a tizzy by the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education and Scout coming to grips with that is a fairly mundane story that has been told in a variety of coming of age stories (young woman coming to terms with family she doesn't agree with) over the years.

The story of "Mockingbird" resonates more with readers because of Atticus' actions and his principals which given the time period of the book and when it was published hit a chord with us. Also, too, the coming of age story, Dill and especially Boo Radley and his sacrifice to keep the Finch children safe are all elements that we can't imagine the book without.

The film version, especially Peck's performance, is all part of what surrounds "Mockingbird" and the way we feel about it.

I just wish that "Watchman" was being treated more for it is- the original story that Lee submitted to her publisher.

The real story is not the differences between the two books but how Lee and her editor worked together to create "Mockingbird" from "Watchman".

I think that's the story I am more interested in reading.

Though, in that context, I may read "Watchman" one of these days.

But I am not rushing out to do so now.

Lynn in Lake Balboa

"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."

"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese

The Bride brought home the book. I probably will read it but keep in mind that the real connections of the books.

I read an article where the author reminds people they don't have to read it. It is particularly directed at the difference in Atticus. It is interesting that he comments that Atticus is what we make him. We define by how we interpret the story and can't help but see him in the way Peck performs the role. The trick will be how easily I can separate the stories.

I am a notoriously slow reader. I have to make myself sit and read, otherwise I watch movies and listen to music. I will likely bump this up the list. I'll let you know about it.

I am in the process. I am by nature a slow reader. It is very much Lee's style. She has a gift for describing people. There is a lot of background and some things that point to MOCKINGBIRD. I'm about 100 pages in Jean Louise has just had her world turned upside down. I'll report back.

I liked everything about it! Lee's use of language and narrative is exceptional, as we already know. The story is fascinating; not so much thanks to plot, but to the response of the characters. Yes, it's hard to accept Atticus as cold and insensitive. We know this man. He's not like that. But it's hard for Scout as well. That is the bones of the story.

My reaction to the book is more positive than a lot of readers'. I guess that's why we all make up our own minds. I liked it!

I defer to Charles Pierce in trying to express the emotions I have felt today at the passing of Ms. Lee:

"There are a handful of movie scenes that make the room very, very dusty for me. It's predictable. I've seen the movies hundreds of times. I know the scenes are coming. It doesn't make any difference. The blurring occurs like an autonomic reflex. The Marsellaise scene in Casablanca is one. So are the last couple of scenes from Bill Forsyth's Local Hero. ("Ah, bugger it. I meant to say cheeri-o.") Dorothy's farewells, especially to the Scarecrow, is another, as is the moment Harry Bailey says, "To my big brother, George, the richest man in town."

And this one:

"Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing."

Harper Lee, who died on Friday at 89, taught so many of us how first to read a book without pictures. (Whenever I am reminded that To Kill A Mockingbird is somehow as equally revered as that unlikable mess, Catcher In The Rye, I despair of American youth.) She taught us what simple humanity was before we were old enough to put a name to it. She taught us–gently, as was the fashion of the times–that there was something very wrong at the heart of the America in which we were being raised. I know it's fashionable now to deride Lee's masterpiece as a tepid depiction of the segregated South in which she was raised. (And let us be charitable and forget the unseemly circus surrounding Go Tell The Watchman.) But, when I consider these arguments, I am reminded always of what Frederick Douglass said in the aftermath of the murder of Abraham Lincoln:

'Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.'

It was 1960 when Lee published her book. Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were still alive. So were Viola Liuzzo and Medgar Evers, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Addie Mae Collins and Denise McNair and Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley were still going happily to Sunday school at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. I like to believe that, even if we didn't know it at the time, even if it were only subconsciously, Lee's book gave millions of schoolchildren something to stash away in ourselves to make sense of what was coming to the country and to determine for ourselves on which side justice was arrayed. I believe, given the sentiment of its times, To Kill A Mockingbird became genuinely subversive over the following decade.